Telmo, are you kidding, or expecting some proposal for a solution from me? The only one that comes to mind is *"rehire Dr. Guillotine* and let him chop off the heads that are in the way of a better system." Then come your next questons:
1:"what would you call a "better system"? Easy: the one without our present difficulties. 2:"How would you implement the betterment" against the existing forces in power FOR that rotten system we want to improve upon? Easy: I dunno. 3:"Do you visualize a bloody revolution?" Answer: with whom? those having a fighting spirit and 'dare' may fight for worse solutions than we have now. I spare us questions 4 - 1000. What raises the remark I received from several list-members lately denying my being a *real* agnostic (...I am sure about so many things... etc.) *Real?* I am agnostic according to my own definition, not any other one: I BELIEVE in infinite unknowables (for our ongoing mentality) both in # and qualia that however exercise influence upon our thinking and events. And: I do not KNOW those unknowables either. We have vague ideas about what the hell is "out there" in the infinite Everything - all adjusted to our restricted mentality to the ways we CAN think (so far). We cannot know them exactly - have no way to get to them. So I am an agnostic, not as the stale dictionary of past scientific registers formulate it. Just as I am -NOT- an atheist in the 'religious' sense (= not believing the ubiquitous definitions of the 'GOD(s)' of registered religions). *I quickly add: I am no missionary and do not want to p[ersuade anybody to accept my ideas. *Tell me where I am wrong - I may learn from it. Thanks for engaging into this discussion with me John Mikes On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:34 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/15/2014 3:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Telmo: >>> >>> I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word >>> 'democracy' as the rule "Cratos" of "DEMOS". the totality of people. You >>> (and probably others, too) mean It >>> as a practical political format based on expression of desire by MANY >>> (majority - called) 'voters'. >>> >> >> John, I agree with your definition. My fear is that democracy cannot be >> protected from a collapse into a dictatorship of the average, and a >> misinformed average in the worst case. I would say that it becomes a >> dictatorship when it starts to legislate on things that it has no ethical >> basis to legislate on, usually in the guise of fear and "the public >> interest". Thus the wars on nouns... >> >> >>> Although it sounds commendable, it also is an oxymoron: >>> not T W O people want the same (interest, policy, advantage, style and >>> 1000 more, if you wish) so the 'voting' (hoax) is a compromise about those >>> lies of the candidates: which are LESS controversial compromise - as >>> formulated during the campaign. >>> >> (It has little impact on the real activities an elected politician >>> will abide by indeed). >>> >> >> Ok. >> >> >>> >>> One thing is for sure: a "MAJORITY" vote implies a subdued MINORITY as a >>> rule (in the US lately arond close to half and half). Furthermore I see no >>> "so callable" democracy neither in authoritarian (religious, fascistic) >>> systems, nor in extreme 'populist' attempts, like the Marxist-base, >>> communist, or socialist (called in these parts: liberal) systems. >>> >> >> Agreed. >> >> >>> The CAPITA:ISTIC (evolved slavery?) variations are >>> aristocratic/feudal at best, if not aristocratic/fascistic, ie. >>> plutocratic. (I call it Global Economic Feudalism). >>> >> >> This is true of modern global capitalism, no doubt. What do you propose? >> >> Best, >> Telmo. >> >> >> You and John Mikes are taking the original, literal meaning of >> "democracy"; rule by majority vote of the demos (which was not *all* the >> people, but let that pass). The more modern conception is constitutionally >> limited government; one in which there is a difficult to modify >> constitution that limits the scope of government(s) and ensures there scope >> for individual and community freedoms. >> > > There's an extra lock in the door, but it doesn't stop being a door. The > majority can remove the restrictions on the scope of government. In > practice, this doesn't seem to be necessary: constitutions are being > removed by being declared "unfashionable", and the majority referes to > those who demands that their individual freedoms be respected as > "constitution nuts". > > The freedoms of the minorities exist only at the discretion of the > majority. The only hope for democracy is that the majority can be sane (and > remain sane). > > >> >> Unfortunately, many in middle-east ignore this last part and take >> democracy to mean that whoever is in the majority can impose their ideas at >> every level from foreign relations to what food can be eaten. >> > > Both American and EU governments (and I suspect other western powers are > not different) currently start wars as they please, fund all sorts of > military and para-military movements in other countries and heavily > regulate which foods we can eat. The raw milk prohibition is one of the > favourite tropes of the libertarians. > > Telmo. > > >> It is an unfortunate feature of Islam that it doesn't recognize a >> separation of church and state (and neither did Christianity until it was >> forced upon it). >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
